Armor far too accurate...

[Orkel]

Yeah, one of my Panthers killed two allied tanks while going full speed from across the map, 1 shot each, on the Demo map with the little village in the middle. The accuracy is definitely screwed up.

[acrashb]

I do believe evolution has pretty much selected the right traits for man

Maybe for getting away from a sabre-toothed tiger, or a bear... not good for armed conflict.

Try it sometime. Take a training course that applies simulated stressors and see if you think tunnel vision has any place at all in a modern conflict. If you're in the US you can take any one of a number of "tactical" courses; see if you can get into a simunitions-based class.

[Dadekster88]

This article is pretty interesting as it has some study work done in it.

http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/1247087-New-findings-expand-understanding-of-tunnel-vision-auditory-blocking-and-lag-time

While tunnel vision is great if you need to focus on one thing and one thing only, in a fluid battlefield situation tunnel vision sooner or later will get you killed I'd think. This is whether the situation is close and in your face or some tank duel at 1000's of meters. If you don't know what's going on around you sooner or later your distraction is going to get you killed when someone takes advantage of it. The article talks about how people can't recall things very well after the incident such as statements made, number of rounds fired who was standing where and so forth. Now keep in mind these are statements made by people who survived these encounters. What do you think happens to a squad heavily engaging enemy forces in front of them and they get flanked? I'd easily see half of the squad being killed before someone even notices perhaps. I think in game this is reflected by you screaming at your screen when your squad is getting mowed down and they don't seem to react at all or they do in a very delayed manner.

I have yet to come across any training either while in the military or law enforcement where having tunnel vision is something they wanted you to have.

[Childress]

If i could change things, i would change the behaviour of tank crews. They act like infantry when the vehicle is destroyed, and i think that was a problem that was fixed in CM 1.

Funny, a lot of posters have mentioned this so there must be something there. But I've not seen it. My pixeltruppen inevitably crawl around in a pitiful state after bailing. Could the Berserker Crew phenomenon be confined to crack/elite tankers?

[PLM2]

Something is seriously wrong...

More than once I've had my commander sniped off the turret with a ATG/tank round to the face in the first shot and the first few moments of exposure. Anyone who says its all good needs to get slapped in the face

[Baneman]

Something is seriously wrong...

More than once I've had my commander sniped off the turret with a ATG/tank round to the face in the first shot and the first few moments of exposure. Anyone who says its all good needs to get slapped in the face

To be fair, the ATG/Tank round missed !

The fact that his head was out of the turret is unfortunate, but it's still a miss in the "armor/ATG too accurate" stakes

[PLM2]

It seems to me almost comical at how people are defending the current accuracies. Its most definitely entirely different than CMAK or CMBB... So which was wrong? Or were crews really able to acquire a target and take it down with that kind of efficiency? At the range in the training mission with my shermans there was not one single miss on any of the dummy tanks I was aiming at, not one, even while moving. Seriously this community always seems on top of its game except for this topic.

[Narsus]

I've seen plenty of misses, and it always seems like my tanks doing the missing.

[Battlefront.com]

It seems to me almost comical at how people are defending the current accuracies.

I find nothing funny about looking at issues clinically rather than emotionally.

Its most definitely entirely different than CMAK or CMBB... So which was wrong?

Have you done a couple hundred tests in each game using the exact same variables, tabulated the results, then determined how different the two are? Or have are you just whinging it?

Or were crews really able to acquire a target and take it down with that kind of efficiency? At the range in the training mission with my shermans there was not one single miss on any of the dummy tanks I was aiming at, not one, even while moving. Seriously this community always seems on top of its game except for this topic.

Well, honestly you're not doing your argument any favors by making such statements. Anecdotal comments are meaningless to make, so if you feel strongly then do some tests and report back. Otherwise, understand that we do not behave like Chicken Little. The sky isn't falling just because a cloud passes overhead.

Having said all that... if CMx2 seems different than CMx1, and we're asked which is more realistic, we'll pick CMx2 by default every time. That's because the modeling in CMx1 is inherently inferior in quality to CMx2. That doesn't mean CMx1 is bad, it just means CMx2 is better. Not to say there couldn't be a bug or something in need of a tweak in CM:BN. There always is that possibility.

One difference in modeling that is probably, in some situations, making CMx2 more accurate than CMx1... targeting memory. In real life each round fired allows the next shot to be more accurate. This is done because the gunner remembers "hey, I tried for 1200m and it fell short. So this time I'm going to try 1300m". In CMx1 this only happened when the gunner did not lose sight of the target. If the target broke LOS/LOF for more than a second or two, the gunner effectively started over from scratch with the next shot fired. In CMx2 gunners have memory so that within a reasonable length of time. This should increase 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round shot chances of hitting at fairly far ranges.

Steve

[PLM2]

I don't get paid to do that. But if you want perhaps I'll make a montage of absurd shots, maybe i'll make an effort. That is if someone else doesn't beat me to it. As I didn't even start this thread but I knew something was blatantly wrong even after trying the demo whereas one of my shermans got picked off after exposing itself for 2 seconds from an ATG pointed 45 degrees away.

Presently I'm seeing units get sniped from 500 meters through a narrow crack in terrain in literally a 5 second window of opportunity or less. A greyhound moving "fast" perpendicular to an enemy gun shouldn't take a hit 100% of the time when its only exposed for 3 seconds. If the accuracy isn't on crack, then the speed of acquisition most definitely is. I know darn well a patch is gonna fix this some day because its very very blatant ATM. Until then I guess we'll just work around.

[C'Rogers]

I don't get paid to do that.

There are people who were paid, or volunteered to test, to do that. If BFC asks you to run a test it isn't because they didn't do the work, but because they did and it disagrees with your results. Until then it is anecdote vs statistic.

I've noticed the scenarios and QBs favor a lot heavier weaponry then I usually saw in CMx1. So I'm not really surprised to see tanks going down quicker, just because there's been more stuff that can take them down. That's all a personal experience issue though.

[dieseltaylor]

Maybe for getting away from a sabre-toothed tiger, or a bear... not good for armed conflict.

Try it sometime. Take a training course that applies simulated stressors and see if you think tunnel vision has any place at all in a modern conflict. If you're in the US you can take any one of a number of "tactical" courses; see if you can get into a simunitions-based class.

You mistake my point. I am not talking of modern combat I am talking of the generalisation that tunnel vision is bad that you made. Ditto auditory inhibition.

The refined argument that eventually tunnel vision will get you killed is a fair point. The question passed over in all the items presented so far is : Does the greater concentration - on either sound or vision actually improve someones performance for the very short-term objective.

Bringing forth details of what police officers /survivors remember is irrelevant to a high degree as humans generally have evolved not to waste time on the inconsequential when in a life/death situation. Not being able to recall the detail is not surely the same as not registering it at all.

[incidentally at squad level I assume that flank protection is a specific role to cover the way humans tend to react.]

In my time I have driven home and cannot recall a single element of the trip however I have driven without incident or accident in a potentially lethal environment. What does that prove? If anything the conscious brain is actually not the master we think it is.

In relation to the thread it was really how armour is over-modelled for speed of spotting and accuracy firing particularly with regard to moving tanks. If at all : ) We are still without any gems on how good are people at spotting in a hostile environment - though I would settle for any information on acuity.

AFAIR the Metropolitan police found those members of the force with the most accidents had poor peripheral vision.

[Dadekster88]

I can't comment on the tanks firing on the move and being too accurate as I have in about 8 games or so seen it done only once and the tank missed what it was aiming for by a country mile. I am not sure about this but I could have swore I read something about crews firing off whatever they had loaded in order to load something more appropriate for their target? So maybe they had HE loaded, lost the target, began to move and while moving came across another tank and instead of unloading etc they just fired off what they had in order to load an AP round? No idea if the game would model something like that but I've had plenty of tanks moving and with targets present and have seen exactly one fire while on the move.

In regards to- Does the greater concentration - on either sound or vision actually improve someones performance for the very short-term objective.

I am sure it does. I don't see why giving all your attention to whatever task you are doing would not be useful but most people don't get what would be properly termed tunnel vision when they are working on a crossword puzzle. Same thing with your drive home example. Day dreaming or your brain being in cruise control/distracted is not the same thing as tunnel vision. You'd have to be a cop and chasing a suspect at 100+ to get the correct tunnel vision we are talking about. Also tunnel vision is something you can train to overcome. A cop or soldier who has been in many tense moments such as pursuits or combat situations will to a large degree be better able to deal with tunnel vision and preventing that from happening.

In game terms I would think that veteran units or higher would be better at spotting and getting hits simply based on the fact that their hands aren't shaking like leaves and have heart rates going through the roof. They are more calm and collected and can do their jobs more effectively which translates into better spotting and hits. I am also pretty confident that BF took this into consideration and I myself haven't seen anything that would cause me to think something is amiss. Have I seen wierd stuff happen? Sure. In every game I have played I've re-played something several times because I just couldn't believe it happened but that's what makes this game so much fun to play.

[gunnersman]

I remember conversations in the CMBO forum about armor not being accurate enough. Or at least the misses counted way more than the hits in ranges around the 500-1000 meter mark. The reasons given were because of bad visibility (trees, smoke, dust) as it should. I made the argument, and I think it applies here as well, that with the muzzle velocities of AP shot at around half a mile a second, the trajectory would be very flat at these distances. Unless there is a 500mph cross wind (804Kph for the European folk ) I would imagine the hits would be more than the misses.

The only serious reading I have done as far as armor combat is Wittman's book. I forget the name. But it stands out to me how many one shot hits his crews had at distances greater than 500m. And against ATGs on the eastern front, no less. (But as far as I can tell it could be written that way for brevity's sake) As I read these accounts I remember thinking to myself, "Why the hell can't the Shermans get hits like this in CMBO?"

Back to the West front: And then there are the large number of losses of Panthers and Tigers when reading after action reports of large engagements. I know I'm speaking in generalizations here. But the point is it occurred to me that if Shermans fought in WW2 like they did in CMBO, it is amazes me that Panthers and Tigers had any losses at all! (if it werent for air support of course).

When compared to CMx1 one always had the impression that the Sherman was damn near impotent. Not so much in CMBN.

[Magpie_Oz]

I certainly noticed that between CMBO and CMAK the uberness of the German tanks, Tiger particularly had reduced markedly.

I wonder if we are replacing the anecdotal mystique which more hard science these days and thus CMBN is yet another step closer to reality?

I recall reading that Wittman's gunner kept his sights on 800m as most engagements took place a t that range and he winged it from there if he though the range was any different. 800m is a bit of a magic number as beyond that range the rise of the shell starts to become significant, less than that range the shell rises no higher than a tank so can be considered "flat".

[Zonks54]

I actually remember one of the Beta testers, Chris "tyrspawn" Krause and the AAR series he did commenting on how quick the tanks aquired targets, if you watched them you may remember.

Im sure that if this is a issue it will get fixed, the one thing that worries me though is if the code contains info from prior games, are the tanks and ATs behaving as a modern tank would?

[Bastables]

Back to the West front: And then there are the large number of losses of Panthers and Tigers when reading after action reports of large engagements. I know I'm speaking in generalizations here. But the point is it occurred to me that if Shermans fought in WW2 like they did in CMBO, it is amazes me that Panthers and Tigers had any losses at all! (if it werent for air support of course).

The army reports checking the knocked out and overrun German armour post Normandy had no frontal penetrations on panthers, they were all side kills. When you get to Caen with it's 1km + engagement ranges Sherman units were pretty much cut to bits. It's similar to the eastern front where most tank losses by the Germans are suffered when a unit is enveloped or drives into defensive/ambush positions such as 12 SS in Normandy or independent Panther regt/battalions in southern France. The Commonwealth and the US were much more effective at killing tanks than the Russians on the Eastern front. The failed defence of Normandy eliminated several months worth of German tank production at the conclusion of the Cobra and link up with the British/Canadians/Polish.

Find the ORA reports or Jentz's panzertruppen books, they both have a listing of tank losses and how they occurred.

I think that People misremember CMBO too, even with overly strong StuG's with all the front treated as 8cm lots of people cried about StuG's being less effective than Sherman in chance encounter at sub 800m ranges. Before the mantel was upped to 12-14cm ont eh tiger and people put the hull at an angle many Tiger commanders cried tears at their losses in Last chance as model tigers were blown up by model 7,62cm armed M18's. CMAK had the Sherman PIV match up witch similar out comes as CMBN with less model fidelity. (none of this sub systems damaged malarkey)

I am perplexed at the oh noes PIV are weaker than Sherman after the Beta AAR done by Elvis. PIV was always in trouble with it's 5cm turret armour at any range. The senario dealing with Goodwood also showed PIV with the lower 750m/s unable to penetrate Sherman except on the turret at 1000m+ ranges and the Sherman being able to kill PIV even at the longer ranges (if they hit). I think the bigger difference is that the old accuracy was directly affected by the muzzle velocity of the gun ( accuracy modifiers based on gun sights were added in CMBB)

[Bigduke6]

The Commonwealth and the US were much more effective at killing tanks than the Russians on the Eastern front.

You sure about that pardner?

[Bastables]

You sure about that pardner?

Based on just Normandy and Bulge yeah, which were the times when Panzer units were concentrated in the West. The Russians were much more effective at bleeding German manpower. Panzer truppen losses of equipment was much higher in the west especially because of Normandy and failed independent Panther regt's in southern France.

Jentz's tends to show a lot of the armour units were deployed west, so logically for 44 and even 45 dead panzer are west of Germany. The losses were so high that Panzer divisions were oft times restricted to one panzer battalion by 45 with much smaller numbers of Panzer at platoon level. to&e for a panther platoon goes from 5, to 4 then 3.

Remember all those refitting and posted Panzer divs in normandy, they lost all their tanks. 3 months combat = all heavy equipment lost circa 50% lost due to abandonment.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't get paid to do that. But if you want perhaps I'll make a montage of absurd shots, maybe i'll make an effort.

Anecdotes don't interest us, so don't bother.

That is if someone else doesn't beat me to it. As I didn't even start this thread but I knew something was blatantly wrong even after trying the demo whereas one of my shermans got picked off after exposing itself for 2 seconds from an ATG pointed 45 degrees away.

This is why we don't like anecdotes. I highly doubt what you say is true exactly as you stated it. An ATG can't even rotate that quickly in 2 seconds, not to mention get off a shot.

Presently I'm seeing units get sniped from 500 meters through a narrow crack in terrain in literally a 5 second window of opportunity or less. A greyhound moving "fast" perpendicular to an enemy gun shouldn't take a hit 100% of the time when its only exposed for 3 seconds.

This sounds like hyperbole. Or did you do a bunch of tests with those conditions and yield a result of 100% hit within 3 seconds?

If the accuracy isn't on crack, then the speed of acquisition most definitely is. I know darn well a patch is gonna fix this some day because its very very blatant ATM. Until then I guess we'll just work around.

Or you can make a better case than just blasting away with anecdotes of dubious accuracy. You see, for 12 years now we have been bombarded by people who fly off the handle and we wind up chasing our tails only to find out there's nothing wrong. After a while it gets quite tiring and distracting from more important things. On the other hand, customers or testers who document problems and come up with statistics which give us an indication of what to change AND VERY IMPORTANTLY how much of a change to make, well... that's completely different.

There are people who were paid' date=' or volunteered to test, to do that. If BFC asks you to run a test it isn't because they didn't do the work, but because they did and it disagrees with your results. Until then it is anecdote vs statistic.[/quote']

Correct. I think PLM2 would understand this better if he were in our position. My favorite example is during CMBO when we had two threads running, side by side, where one was full of anecdotes about how the game was "biased in favor of German tanks" and another thread that was full of anecdotes about how the game was "biased against German tanks". Both couldn't be true, but neither side wanted to yield ground.

There's a lot of possible reasons why vehicles might not last as long in CM:BN as they MIGHT have in CMx1. I honestly don't know if this is even true because I don't know anybody that's done a side by side comparison. But my earlier explanation about targeting memory certainly SHOULD increase accuracy in CM:BN under some circumstances.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I actually remember one of the Beta testers, Chris "tyrspawn" Krause and the AAR series he did commenting on how quick the tanks aquired targets, if you watched them you may remember.

That beta he played was months earlier than what you have now. Lots of changes were made between then and now, including spotting chances.

Im sure that if this is a issue it will get fixed, the one thing that worries me though is if the code contains info from prior games, are the tanks and ATs behaving as a modern tank would?

A logical concern, but not a real problem. Because of the high level of detail there are very few generic variables/modifiers at work. Instead something like an Abrams can spot the way it does because it has certain systems present, such as 360 deg FLIR. A Sherman doesn't have a FLIR system therefore it gets no bonus like an Abrams would. Where there are generic variables/modifiers, they can be grouped by things such as historical timeframe, type of vehicle, etc.

Steve

[Joachim]

Based on just Normandy and Bulge yeah, which were the times when Panzer units were concentrated in the West. The Russians were much more effective at bleeding German manpower. Panzer truppen losses of equipment was much higher in the west especially because of Normandy and failed independent Panther regt's in southern France.

Jentz's tends to show a lot of the armour units were deployed west, so logically for 44 and even 45 dead panzer are west of Germany. The losses were so high that Panzer divisions were oft times restricted to one panzer battalion by 45 with much smaller numbers of Panzer at platoon level. to&e for a panther platoon goes from 5, to 4 then 3.

Remember all those refitting and posted Panzer divs in normandy, they lost all their tanks. 3 months combat = all heavy equipment lost circa 50% lost due to abandonment.

It is interesting to note that most of the German losses effectively occured in 2 failed all-out attacks gambling on "now or never" in a time when the war was effectively lost for them. A pretty small and biased sample.

The Soviets weren't presented those occasions after '43. They had to do without help from the enemy.

[Bastables]

I'm getting old, or stupid any references to Ora reports should read ORS aka operational research section. Not whatever made up acronym my mind made up.